DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 and 11-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (U.S. Patent No. 9,034,259 B2, where the examiner is using Kanda1 hereinafter for citations) in view of Kanda (U.S. Patent No. 7,417,734 B2, where the examiner is using Kanda2 hereinafter for citations) further in view of Ben Shoshan et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0290916 A1).
As to claims 1, 4 and 20, Kanda1 discloses and shows in figures 1 and 6, a particle sorting device comprising:
an irradiation unit (optical source that is disclosed to produce the laser beam as explicitly shown) that irradiates a part of a flow path (i.e. path defined by sample conduit 13) through which a fluid containing particles (P) flows with laser light (col. 4, ll. 36-40);
a detection unit (optical detector as disclosed but not shown on the other end of fiber 37) that detects light generated by irradiation of the laser light (col. 4, ll. 36-50);
an orifice (opening area explicitly shown in figure 6 where fluid flows through) that is disposed at an end of the flow path and discharges the fluid (this function is as explicitly shown in the figure) (col. 8, ll. 29-50);
a portion (i.e. nozzle plate 22) disposed at the end of the flow path (explicitly shown in figure 2, i.e. downstream of 15) where the fluid is formed into a droplet (as explicitly shown right before the fluid turns into droplets (D) in figure 6) (col. 4, ll. 32-35; col. 6, ll. 15-20); and
a charging unit (electrical charger disclosed but not show, where the examiner is taking it as the structural equivalent for performing an identical function) that applies a charge to the conductive portion on a basis of light data detected by the detection unit (col. 6, ll. 15-20).
Kanda1 does not explicitly disclose where the nozzle plate is conductive.
However, Kanda2 does disclose and shown in figure 4 and in (col. 7, ll. 66 thru col. 8, l. 11) a similar conductive portion where they explicitly define the structure as an “electrode 93”. The examiner takes Office Notice that “charging” electrodes are commonly the result of using a metal (i.e. being a conductive material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanda1 where the nozzle plate is conductive in order to provide the advantage of expected results, as obviously in using something common like a metal one can charge the particles as desired in a low cost, predictable manner as disclosed.
Kanda1 in view of Kanda2 does not explicitly disclose wherein a replaceable portion of the particle sorting device includes the orifice and/or the conductive portion, and a holding portion held by a user at a time of replacement, wherein the holding portion is disposed on a side of the replaceable portion of the particle sorting device opposite to an insertion direction side or wherein the conductive portion and the orifice are replaceable.
However, Ben Shoshan does disclose and show in figure 3 and in ([0017]; [0041]; [0045]; [0051]) the basic concept of a holding portion (circle area of slide 26, opposite the insertion direction) of a replaceable portion of a particle sorting device (i.e. particles sorted into loading area 62) which can be inserted into a measurement device. The examiner notes that the measurement device of Ben Shoshan is distinct from that of Kanda1 and Kanda2, however the modification is merely to show that it is well-known that parts in optical measuring and testing can be replaceable and in doing so obviously have “holding portions” to ensure proper handling during replacement. As such obviously Kanda1’s orifice/conductive portion can be replaceable, since it has been held that that making parts of a system separable i.e. replaceable is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanda1 in view of Kanda2 with wherein a replaceable portion of the particle sorting device includes the orifice and/or the conductive portion, and a holding portion held by a user at a time of replacement, wherein the holding portion is disposed on a side of the replaceable portion of the particle sorting device opposite to an insertion direction side or wherein the conductive portion and the orifice are replaceable in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility and accuracy in making parts separable in an obvious manner one can clearly make said parts replaceable in a case where they are damaged or need cleaning thus extending the life of the system under use.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 20 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 1 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 20, therefore the method is obvious in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claim 15, Kanda1 discloses and shows in figures 1 and 5, an orifice unit for a particle sorting device, comprising:
an orifice that is partially (by virtue of comprising the conductive portion forming part of it, it is being interpreting as reading on the noted element) or entirely conductive (opening area explicitly shown in figure 6 where fluid flows through) (col. 8, ll. 29-50); and
a portion (i.e. nozzle plate 22) that supports the orifice (i.e. by virtue of making up part of its structure as explicitly shown in figure 6) (col. 4, ll. 32-35; col. 6, ll. 15-20).
Kanda1 does not explicitly disclose where the nozzle plate having an inner surface is conductive.
However, Kanda2 does disclose and shown in figure 4 and in (col. 7, ll. 66 thru col. 8, l. 11) a similar conductive portion where they explicitly define the structure as an “electrode 93”. The examiner takes Office Notice that “charging” electrodes are commonly the result of using a metal (i.e. being a conductive material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanda1 where the nozzle plate having an inner surface is conductive in order to provide the advantage of expected results, as obviously in using something common like a metal one can charge the particles as desired in a low cost, predictable manner as disclosed.
Kanda1 in view of Kanda2 does not explicitly disclose wherein a replaceable portion of the particle sorting device includes the orifice and/or the conductive portion, and a holding portion held by a user at a time of replacement, wherein the holding portion is disposed on a side of the replaceable portion of the particle sorting device opposite to an insertion direction side.
However, Ben Shoshan does disclose and show in figure 3 and in ([0017]; [0041]; [0045]; [0051]) the basic concept of a holding portion (circle area of slide 26, opposite the insertion direction) of a replaceable portion of a particle sorting device (i.e. particles sorted into loading area 62) which can be inserted into a measurement device. The examiner notes that the measurement device of Ben Shoshan is distinct from that of Kanda1 and Kanda2, however the modification is merely to show that it is well-known that parts in optical measuring and testing can be replaceable and in doing so obviously have “holding portions” to ensure proper handling during replacement. As such obviously Kanda1’s orifice/conductive portion can be replaceable, since it has been held that that making parts of a system separable i.e. replaceable is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanda1 in view of Kanda2 with wherein a replaceable portion of the particle sorting device includes the orifice and/or the conductive portion, and a holding portion held by a user at a time of replacement, wherein the holding portion is disposed on a side of the replaceable portion of the particle sorting device opposite to an insertion direction side in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility and accuracy in making parts separable in an obvious manner one can clearly make said parts replaceable in a case where they are damaged or need cleaning thus extending the life of the system under use.
As to claim 2, Kanda1 as modified by Kanda2 discloses a particle sorting device , wherein a part or all of an inner surface of the orifice has conductivity (by virtue of comprising the conductive portion forming part of it, it is being interpreting as reading on the noted element) (col. 8, ll. 29-50, where the conductivity aspect has already been modified above, the same motivation/modification above also applies here).
As to claim 3, Kanda1 as modified by Kanda2 discloses a particle sorting device, wherein the conductive portion contains the orifice (i.e. by virtue of making up part of its structure as explicitly shown in figure 6) (col. 4, ll. 32-35; col. 6, ll. 15-20).
As to claim 5, Kanda1 discloses a particle sorting device, wherein the conductive portion is replaceable (col. 8, ll. 29-50, again since the conductive portion 22 is detachably engaged with the sorting device it is also being found to implicitly be replaceable).
As to claims 7 and 17, Kanda1 does not explicitly disclose a particle sorting device, wherein the conductive portion includes a connection portion connected to the charging unit.
However, Kanda2 does disclose and show in figure 4 and in (col. 7, l. 66 thru col. 11) the use of electronic charging circuitry 91 connected to the conductive portion 93 via a wire as explicitly shown. Obviously the basic concept of using a wire to relay a voltage/current to the conductive portion could also be used in Kanda1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanda1 with a particle sorting device, wherein the conductive portion includes a connection portion connected to the charging unit in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased efficiency as obviously using a wire to relay voltage/current is the most common way known in all measuring and test, further in doing so increased charging efficiency vs a wireless based charging system.
As to claim 8, Kanda1 discloses a particle sorting device, wherein the conductive portion is disposed so as to abut on the orifice (Fig. 7, col. 8, ll. 29-50; again conductive portion 22 forms part of the orifice and specifically abuts against section 28 which also forms part of the orifice).
As to claim 9, Kanda1 discloses and shows in figure 6, a particle sorting device, wherein the orifice is formed in a replaceable chip (col. 8, ll. 29-50; where the examiner is interpreting that since the orifice is constructed via multiple parts interlinked via O-rings, it can be interpreted as a replaceable chip as each part can be replaced clearly as necessary, the examiner notes that the term “chip” has no explicitly geometric requirements in the optical art as they come in all shapes/sizes).
As to claim 11, Kanda1 discloses a particle sorting device, wherein the charging unit corrects a charge amount of a droplet (col. 6, ll. 15-20; where the examiner is interpreting the prior art as capable of the intended use based on the voltage/polarity modification explicitly disclosed in Kanda1).
As to claim 12, Kanda1 discloses and shows in figure 1, a particle sorting device, wherein the conductive portion is disposed downstream of a region irradiated with the laser light in a flow direction of the fluid (col. 4, ll. 28-40).
As to claim 13, Kanda1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the conductive portion is formed of one or more conductive materials selected from a group including a metal, a conductive resin, and a non-conductor having a surface to which conductivity is imparted.
However, Kanda2 does disclose and shown in figure 4 and in (col. 7, ll. 66 thru col. 8, l. 11) a similar conductive portion where they explicitly define the structure as an “electrode 93”. The examiner takes Office Notice that “charging” electrodes are commonly the result of using a metal (i.e. being a conductive material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanda1 wherein the conductive portion is formed of one or more conductive materials selected from a group including a metal, a conductive resin, and a non-conductor having a surface to which conductivity is imparted in order to provide the advantage of expected results, as obviously in using something common like a metal one can charge the particles as desired in a low cost, predictable manner as disclosed.
As to claim 14, Kanda1 discloses a particle sorting device, wherein the particle includes a cell (col. 4, ll. 21-25).
As to claim 18, Kanda1 disclose an orifice unit for the particle sorting device, wherein the orifice unit for the particle sorting device is attached in a screwing manner or a lateral insertion manner to an end of a flow path through which a fluid containing particles flows (col. 8, ll. 29-50; where the examiner is interpreting that layer 22 can be inserted in a lateral manner if desired as thus is capable of the intended use of claim 18, please see MPEP 2114 (II)).
As to claim 19, Kanda1 discloses an orifice unit for the particle sorting device, further comprising a positioning mechanism for attachment to the end of the flow path (col. 8, 35-38; where O-ring 27a for example helps control the positional location of piece 28 relative to 10).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda1 in view of Kanda2 in view of Ben Shoshan et al. further in view of Tanase et al. (U.S. PGPub No 2015/0285726 A1).
As to claim 10, Kanda1 in view of Kanda2 further in view of Ben Shoshan does not explicitly disclose a particle sorting device, further comprising a ground electrode disposed in a vicinity of a position where the fluid is formed into a droplet, wherein the charging unit applies a charge to the ground electrode.
However, Tanase does disclose and show in figure 1 and in ([0005]; [0071] the use of ground electrodes in a flow cytometry system in the vicinity of where the fluid is formed into a droplet. Further, Tanase discloses that the second charging electrode 5 is connected to ground, as such obviously it can be charged or function as a ground.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanda1 in view of Kanda2 further in view of Ben Shoshan with a particle sorting device, further comprising a ground electrode disposed in a vicinity of a position where the fluid is formed into a droplet, wherein the charging unit applies a charge to the ground electrode in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency as noted by Tanase using a grounded electrode eliminates influence of high potential of the electrode pair changing the travelling direction of the droplets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights